Weasel

Here's a short article in the Times about the introduction of a new toll charge to motorists in London. As of 2003 anyone wishing to drive into inner-city London will be hit for £5 (roughly $7?) per day. If it proves to work well, then they might introduce it in all major cities in the country.

If the lousy public transport system is improved it should keep a few more cars off the road, and maybe just cause the introduction of a few more bicycles?

Does anyone else have a similar sort of system in their cities?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,...233992,00.html

mike

Don't get too excited too fast. If that law passes with the opposition it will face from the auto industry, oil industry, and massive public opinion, you can bet the taxman will soon be coming after the bicyclist.

Where I live, they built one meager inner-city bicycle path. Due to historically poor city planning, It is the only route for bicyclists to travel straight north-south without mixing with one of few terrible congested north-south streets. Surprise surprise, the bicycle path is used heavily. It looks like a city street at times, but with bicycles. I will try to post a pic because it is kinda unusual.

Guess what - there is a user fee for bicycles. No user fee for autos in the streets, but user fees for bicyclists.

Don't support taxes on others because that stink knows no boundaries.

jramsey

What do London workers pay to park in the urban core? Is it not like the U.S., where urban centers have parking meters and pay lots? In Downtown Kansas City, people pay anywhere from $25 to $100+ per month for a company parking garage or other parking lot.

I remember in the 80s, people that I worked with in central Washington, DC, finding "bargains", only $6 per day. In New Jersey, I would pay, in the mid 80s, $4 to park in Newark, then $4 to take the PATH into Manhattan.

With that cost for leaving your auto in the city, a few quid for tying up the streets might not be too bad, as long as there are reasonable alternatives to select.

Jonathan

JonR

I'm not certain I understand this part: do you mean, Mike, that the bike route is actually a toll-road for cyclists? And in that case, will they "retire" the toll after the costs have been paid off, as they do with automobile toll roads in many places (typically after two or three lifetimes)?

mike

It is kind of like a toll road. There are "fee centers" along the trail. You can pay a $3.00 per use fee or pay $15.00 for a yearly pass. You have to display your pass on you bike. Maybe it isn't a lot of money, but it is the principal of it. Hell, the paved section is only 5 miles long.

The fee isn't going away. They say the money is to be used as maintanance.

JonR

It sure is about principles! I think somebody ought to challenge this in court. How in the world is this fair? Cyclists already pay taxes, and the taxes go for road maintenance--mostly to maintain automotive roads, except for this five miles! That's just plain loony, as well as unjust.

AlphaGeek

Ah, the very definition of government!
Ooops! Forgot about those pesky forum spys in the FBI/CIA!

MichaelW

A $3 toll for 5 miles is far too much. Compare it to road tolls.
In the UK we need a licence to ride some canal paths, but all bike paths are free.

The London toll is probably more popular than you would think. Most London commuters use public transport and find their buses held up by single-occupant cars.
The mayor is behind the scheme and he is radical and popular.
A lot of big buisness wants the congestion problem solved.
Taxis will be excluded, and there will probably be other cases (commercial delivery, health workers etc).

Car drivers in central London know in their hearts that they have lost the battle. The financial district has enjoyed car-free status for many years as a result of a security cordon. It is cleaner, quieter and more pleasant than before.

Chris L

Instead of making people pay to drive on a stretch of road, why not do what I've heard they've done in Singapore, that is, just don't build any more car park spaces. They can sell the existing car parking spaces off to private enterprise and they can determine the cost to park there.

Private companies wouldn't miss them with charges.

Chris

mike

Singapore is a different kind of place. It is an island that you can bicycle or walk very effectively. Better yet, they have a dazzling subway system - clean, efficient, safe, and everywhere.

They put a mall in our town years ago and hadn't planned for sufficient parking. It was a significant factor in killing the downtown area and the mall itself. Other malls with big free parking sprouted in the sprawl which took the business from downtown.

JonR

Yet another indictment (as though any were needed) of our motor-car-obsessed (and -dependent) culture.

Chris L

And therein lie another solution. The private motor vehicle is the most heavily subsidised method of transport in the history of mankind. Just imagine what could result if that money was instead spent on providing an efficient public transport system.

Chris

mike

Amen, Brother!

LittleBigMan

Ah, the fresh air of the commuting cyclist community! Of course, as others have said, "one man's meat is another's poison," so this thread might be extremely offensive to a motorist.

The sheer popularity of Mike's local path underscores the increasing need for accomodating cyclists in a fashion that affords them the same respect given motorists in our society. But I think the path option is just "throwing us leftovers." And I would never pay for leftovers, unless (as in this example) I were starving.

Cyclists need real options. They need real roads and real law enforcement for speeding motorists. Not leftovers.

If you charge me a fee to use a path, it had better be a limited access highway that allows me to get from A to B without stopping or dodging pedestrians or animals or debris (or traffic lights?)

mwmw

Why should bicyclists have to bear the cost of building and maintaining the paths? The motoring public benefits just as much, if not more, by the relief it brings to the overcrowded roads.

JonR

Plus, they'll probably end up driving on it anyway.

Chris L

If people are worried about the cost of building bike paths, the solution is simple.

1. Be more selective about who gets a drivers' licence in the first place.

2. Build roads with a decent sized shoulder on them.

I personally would prefer to make roads safer than be forced onto a path.

Chris

AlphaGeek

Oh, yeah! Absolutely.

jramsey

In Kansas City, they talk about paths a lot, as well. Lately, I've heard, and read from correspondence that JonR has shared with me, words like "route". Very vague.

If those "routes" are roadways designed for bikes and cars together, great. Otherwise, save that money.

Jonathan

SteveF

Here in CA, a "bike route" is a street that is designated for use by cars and bikes together. It is usually wide enough for a separate "bike lane" to be painted onto the street surface, usually between the auto lane and either the shoulder or the parallel parking area (watch that you don't get doored!). It's no problem at all to ride on non-bike-route streets, but you don't get your own lane to do it in.

Perhaps KC is considering adopting something similar.

JonR

In parts of suburban Greater KC, they have lanes like that. I'm thinking of portions of Merriam Lane (or Drive, or Parkway, or whatever it's called--the north-south thing) and there are no doubt others. The effectiveness of those lanes depends entirely on the courtesy of drivers. I suppose it's a good thing. Can't help feeling it tees a lot of drivers off, making them think, "No good cyclists getting all that space for their own, harrumph!" and the result is even less respect for cycling....

willic

Any form of toll for cyclists would be , and is a joke ,having experienced one recently myself

I was having a few days holiday in the Derbishire Peak district National Park ,famous in England for its designated cycle routes , these routes have pay booths at the beggining of each trial. the one I chose to cycle . the Tissington trail a route of about 20 miles seemed very quite this sunny Sunday morning , a few hundred yards down the trail I soon found everyone just lifting there cycles over fences. through the gaps in the hedges etc to avoid the pay booth,

So how could any tolls for cycling be enforced when a cycle is so easy to "sneak" through barriers.

snoop_dujour

Oh, TOLLS.....I thought there where TROLLS on your bike paths.
Personaly I would avoid either.

cheers
Snoop DuJour

jramsey

Yeah, I think Merriam Dr. has bicycle lanes in Merriam and Merriam Ln. in KCK. Olathe, KS, Shawnee, KS, Fairway, KS and Prairie Village, KS, as well. I don't believe I've seen them in Kansas City, MO, or in Overland Park, KS. Overland Park has "Bicycle Friendly" signs on some major roads.

The problem I have with most of these "curb" lanes is that they often end 10 meters before lights. At this point, automobilists tend to careen that way with their lane without looking, or they simply expect the cyclist to yield. As the cyclist, it would often be easier if I were already in that lane, instead of a second-class bike lane from which I must merge with the right turners and thru traffic, when the bike lane ends.

I think TV PSAs and billboards aimed at motorists, as well as uninformed bicyclists, would be very effective. In metropolitan areas like Kansas City, these could be sponsored by the dozens of municipalities served by the local stations. Education could go a long way, aimed at motorists and bicyclists, to dispel a lot of misinformation about bike rights and responsibilities. According to Kansas law, bicycles must ride with traffic, and their presence on sidewalks, while ridden, is unlawful in business zones. Most kids and adults I see on bicycles seem to ride with the same awareness of traffic patterns as a motorist doing donuts in an empty, icy, snowy parking lot.

Jonathan

AlphaGeek

I have heard that KKs do strange things to the mind! :confused: